Talk:Commelina communis/GA1

GA Review

OK, I will begin a review here:

Looking good, the tips I will give here should give it a boost toward FA, which should be readily achievable without too much fuss. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is a summary of salient points in the article, and as such, all material within it should be expanded upon later. A common issue is names and naming -often more easily just left in the lead and not used elsewhere as it seems too repetitious in a small article. A good example is ano of the other plant Featured Articles - seeFicus aurea and Banksia ericifolia as two off the top of my head. I will start and show. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to do this as best as possible. Names were not expanded upon as per your comment above, and other than that the only points mentioned in the lead that were not expanded upon were the details about taxonomy, which are so brief as to not really merit their own section. There are several published varieties that are no longer accepted, but I will leave working on that until FAC if you think that's acceptable. I also see now that flowering times didn't make it into the body, so I will add that now. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, I always put common names, alternate names and naming history into taxonomy which generally bolsters it a bit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I created a taxonomy section that breifly discusses synonyms and varieties. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• All units should have imperial alternatives.

• All units should have nonbreaking spaces between the number and the unit. And hyphens between numbers should be –. I have done the first few.

• I think the i.e.s are unnecessary.

• Do you think it's better to keep the jargon explinations in parentheses (but without "i.e.") or to work them into sentence as parenthetical phrases? The "i.e."s certainly do get repetitve, but it seemed to me somewhat clearer than without them. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Have a play with it - either way of yours sounds ok. See how you feel about either version. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Incorporated the "i.e."s into the text DJLayton4 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• monochasium - explain or link

• DoneDJLayton4 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• false axis - explain or link

• Removed as it didn't add anything DJLayton4 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• acuminate, staminodes and cincinni - explain or link

• Acuminate and staminode were explained at their first mentions, but I've linked them as well DJLayton4 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• The chromosome number is n=44. - why not "There are 44 chromosomes."?

• I'm very ignorant when it comes to genetics, but n=44 is the haploid number, right? Does this imply that the species is not diploid, or does it mean that gametes have n=44? My lack of understanding on this topic is the main reason I didn't alter what FNA had listed. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• n is the haploid number of chromosomes. Assuming that the species is diploid, there are 44 pairs of chromosomes. Guettarda (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• I talked to an expert on the subject and apparenly n=44 is only representative of Taiwanese plants, so I removed it for now. The number actually varies quite a bit, but I don't have refs for this yet. DJLayton4 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)